Others appreciate the exchange and deepening of discussions on the challenges ahead, but do not readily accept that LAWS exist, or that entirely autonomous weapons systems will ever exit, because there will always be some degree of human oversight. They believe national assessments under Article 36 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions suffice, though …
From a legal perspective, when considering the obligation of States to review new weapons before their deployment and use under Article 36 of [AP I], it is difficult to see how a weapon system that autonomously changes its own functioning could ever be approved, since what had been tested and verified at one point in …
3. … It [sic] not arbitrary, but it is a fact that no weapons system possessed by the UK is fully autonomous. Existing highly automated weapons meet the stringent standards of Article 36 legal weapons reviews. 6. … Focus on the level of human control in weapons systems, as required under the four fundamental principles of IHL …
Conducting legal weapon reviews under Article 36 of [AP I] plays a decisive role in guaranteeing that use and development of [LAWS] strictly comply with IHL norms. Information exchange on Article 36 mechanisms and procedures among State parties would be truly beneficial for improving the level of transparency and confidence building. Statement by Bulgaria under …
The unanimous conclusion by the High Contracting Parties that all weapon systems, including LAWS, and their deployment in armed conflict, must comply with the requirements set by international law, in particular [IHL]. In this light, we encourage all states to fulfil their obligations under article 36 of [AP I] on legal reviews. Statement by the …
Accountability measures are built in throughout the lifecycle of weapons systems — from concept, to initial development, through the assessment of legal use and acceptance into service, and ultimately the decision to deploy a system operationally. This is written into the technical standards governing their development to their assessment through the medium of Article 36 …
In our view, conducting legal weapon reviews under Article 36 of [AP I] serves as an important tool to assure that use and development of [AWS] is in compliance with IHL rules and regulations. Considering the multidimensional and intricate nature of LAWS, the processes of reviewing autonomous systems would be a challenging and complex issue. …
Given the fact that most [AWS] involve a high level of complexity, the Netherlands believes that the following elements are of importance: … The execution of legal weapon reviews that pay sufficient attention to the autonomy aspect of the [AWS]. If needed, boundaries could be placed on the deployment of the system. Statement by the …
2. … The UK’s clear position is that IHL and Article 36 Weapons Reviews are the applicable legal framework for the assessment and use of all weapons systems in armed conflict, including new and novel weapons technologies, in order to ensure their effects are thoroughly assessed and understood. 3. The UK has published its weapons review procedures …
I believe that the starting point should remain a common, shared recognition that our engagement towards the full implementation of, and respect for, the rules and principles of IHL must stand firm independently of the specificity of any weapons system. I am referring not only to the rules on the conduct of hostilities but also …
Article 36 of [API] contains the obligation to review whether the development or acquisition of new means and methods of warfare are permitted under international law. The Netherlands would like to underline that: (1) Efforts to ensure full and universal implementation of Article 36 procedures should be increased. (2) The concept of meaningful human control …
The United States places great importance on the weapon review process in the development and acquisition of new weapon systems. This is a critical measure in ensuring that weapon systems can dependably be used in a manner that is consistent with IHL Statement by the United States under agenda item 5: general debate (9 April …
We also welcomed the shared reiteration that rules and principles of [IHL] must apply to all weapons systems, including LAWS. We continue to believe that our engagement towards the full implementation of, and respect for, the rules and principles of IHL must stand firm independently of the specificity of any weapon system. This includes the …
At this stage, we are particularly interested in the existing obligation that all States Parties to [AP I] have to assess the compliance with IHL of all weapons, means and methods of warfare, including LAWS — through weapons reviews. These reviews serve as an existing barrier to the development and deployment of LAWS and will …
Although we’ve heard the message from some States that weapons reviews are not sufficient, we think further consideration by this group of weapons reviews, without prejudice to other elements of the groups’ work, would be worthwhile. The United States remains interested in sharing practice on weapons reviews with a view towards more States understanding their …
The obligation to carry out legal reviews of new weapons under article 36 of [AP I] is crucial for ensuring that a State’s armed forces are capable of conducting hostilities in accordance with its international obligations. We call for the universalization of this important protocol and welcome the suggestion put forward in this regard by …
We stress, however, that the development and use of new military technologies, including autonomous technologies for military purposes, do not take place in a legal vacuum. We therefore see merit in further discussion and information sharing on how existing regulation, including national Article 36 processes, can be best implemented to ensure that no weapon system is used in violation of international law, in particular [IHL].
… legal weapons reviews, as required by Article 36 of [AP I] are crucial. These require that States conduct legal reviews to establish, in each specific case, whether a weapon, means or method of warfare can be developed, acquired or used lawfully. Such reviews should also assess the legality of emerging weapons systems, including LAWS. …
When considering the human element in the use of lethal force, Finland believes that compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law is a key component. The notion that humans will now and in the future exert control over decisions of life and death needs to be at the center of our deliberations. Legal reviews …
We are of the view that a Political Declaration or non-legally binding Code of Conduct comprising voluntary measures can only be an interim step towards a legally binding instrument. Similarly, the “weapon review” required under Article 36 of [AP I] is not sufficient to deal with the development of LAWS. These national reviews, regardless of …
